149
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by favoredponcho@lemmy.zip to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] frunch@lemmy.world 88 points 3 days ago

Non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/mO5EF

I think it's worth noting this about Newsom:

Even in this heavily Democratic state, CalCare has never made it through the Capitol — this would have been Kalra’s third run at making the concept a reality. Although Gov. Gavin Newsom campaigned on universal health care, he moved away from the idea once he became governor, instead leaning into the fight to expand Medi-Cal to all income-qualified undocumented immigrants.

He'll say/do whatever it takes to win office, then he'll start reneging on the spicy promises that got him there. Politics 101, i guess. But note this goes a step further--a Democrat governor in a heavily Dem-controlled state, yet they still can't seem to find the majority needed to do something genuinely helpful at a critical time, choosing to blame Trump the same way Trump blames the Democrats for everything under the sun.

“Single payer is a powerful idea, and the Speaker appreciates Assemblymember Kalra’s leadership — but under Trump, it’s impossible,” Rivas spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. “Democrats’ focus is simple: protect coverage and stop Trump from ripping it away from Californians.”

The cherry on top, in my opinion--Californians would need to pay $14 billion more to make this plan take flight--on top of the $731 billion they currently pay. So close! (งツ)ว

Ah well, maybe next time right? (For the record, this was the 3rd attempt to introduce a single-payer healthcare plan to the state)

As a lifelong left/dem voter, I'm really, really getting tired of this "oh gosh we were so close to making something better for once! But just wait 2/4/x years and we'll do it then, we promise!" -- just to watch a Fetterman or Sinema or Manchin poke their head out of a donkeys asshole for just long enough to vote "no" on progress on any front whatsoever. I get why people say "both sides" because when you've seen this routine for long enough, it really does look that way sometimes. I'll keep voting and rooting for progress anyway, but I'm past pretending the truly powerful Dems genuinely have any of the common person's interest at heart.

[-] notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

This may be a trite comment, however one need look no further than California politics to see what is wrong with the Democratic Party as a whole.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

just to watch a Fetterman or Sinema or Manchin poke their head out of a donkeys asshole for just long enough to vote "no" on progress on any front whatsoever.

The Lieberman model is tied and true.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 25 points 3 days ago
[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago

Never trust centrists.

[-] phar@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

And then think of how much less would they pay out of their paychecks every month for healthcare. I just don't get it.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago

Dems backstabbing progressives yet again.

[-] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 16 points 2 days ago

Almost like dems are part of the problem

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 30 points 3 days ago

To the surprise of no one. And Democrats keep telling us we need more Democrats elected at the federal level to get things like affordable housing, livable wages, universal healthcare, yet the state with a bulletproof Democrat supermajority won't do it. I have no reason to believe they will at the federal level. They will always have a rotating villain to soil their plans.

[-] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Yet the Dems want it to defend and worship Newsome if he gets nominated cause the Dems think they can still win on "lesser evil".

[-] HeroicBillyBishop@lemmy.ca 34 points 3 days ago

it must be very disappointing to be a starry-eyed new Democratic candidate, only to find out the Democrats also eat babies

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 41 points 3 days ago

Basically, it didn't get a hearing to get out of committee. Another fucked up headline politico. You're consistently proving your worth.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 2 days ago

Stop carrying water for fakes.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

it didn’t get a hearing to get out of committee

And which party controls the committee? Go on, say it.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 days ago

My memory is probably longer than a lot of lemmings' lifetimes so no, not trying to much the football again, Lucy.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 29 points 3 days ago

Basically, it didn't get a hearing to get out of committee.

And how does that not confirm the point of the article? No, seriously, I have no idea how the whole committee system works; who would've been responsible for getting it to a proper vote?

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

I'm also interested in getting a better understanding of how this works. I'm hopeful the comments OP comes back to explain. I genuinely would like to know exactly where this fell apart, because it doesn't seem like that outrageous of an idea.

[-] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

Instead, they came back to insult the person saying that if Republicans did it no one would complain.

Weird how the DNC always gets away with bullshit but you aren't allowed to talk about it.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

you aren’t allowed to talk about it.

And yet here we all are, talking about it.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Do you think for one second that this would have been even reported on if it was the other side? The headline should have read that it didn't get out of committee and made boring, just like all of the crazy shit they sane wash for trump.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 3 days ago

Uh... that has nothing to do with what I asked? Is there context that challenges the framing of the article? Because the article treats the bill not getting out of committee as adding insult to injury rather than a boring event.

[-] LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Spineless fucking parasites

[-] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

You know the old adage, "Ask for a pony if you want a gerbil?"

Promise a pony and then give them a gerbil.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago

That’s a major bummer.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago
[-] frunch@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Here you are, monsieur/madame:

https://archive.ph/mO5EF

Anytime you run into a paywall, try copying the link and pasting it into the bank at the top of this page: http://www.archive.ph/

...if they have a non-paywall version, they'll serve it up ✨

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

When I make that comment, I'm trying to encourage OP to post a non-paywalled link to make everyone's experience a little better.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

And tbh i made my comment to let others playing along at home know that there are ways around paywalls in general. 🙂 In any event--i appreciate what you're doing, and I'll post those types of responses as a general response to the post and not directly to yours. 🥂

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29552 readers
1017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS